Which Christianity is the real thing?

[The]

Full disclosure, I am an atheist. However that being said if I came to believe in the Christian God I would have no idea--and no way to find out with any certainty--which Christian religion is the true religion. Some Christian denominations preach that failure to believe in their dogma would bar me from heaven, and damn me to hell or its equivalent.

The true Christian is one who is in Christ, the teachings of Christ and the belief of a Christian are one. If what one who professes to be a Christian teaches is contrary to the teachings of Christ... then that individual is not a Christian. That is how you find out "with certainty".

So, I wonder, how does any Christian know with any certainty that they are on the right path to salvation? It seems to me no Christian can be even reasonably sure that, despite their belief in God and Jesus, that they can be assured of anything after death like everlasting life, given the enormous disagreement between Christians. If Christians can't agree on how to be a Christian and honor, worship, and serve God, how is a converted atheist supposed to choose (and choose one must some Christian denominations claim) which is the correct path?

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners. Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." (Romans 10:9)


How, I wonder, can any Christian be believed? How can one know who is right and who is wrong?

You know what is Evil, if one teaches that you should do evil, then they serve evil. If one teaches that you should do good, then they serve what is good.... and only God is good.


It seems to me that every Christian, no matter how true their faith, is condemned to their own insoluble Pascal's Wager. They cannot know the true faith. How awful, it seems to me, to know that despite a belief in God and Jesus and faithfully serving them both that a Christian can still suffer internal damnation for merely failing to choose the right Christian religion.

I confess Christ, and my sin. I am saved as a result of the grace of God, according to the scriptures which are the foundation, beginning and end. Christ taught that If I am a believer then I am saved, I am a Christian because I believe in what Christ taught.... therefore you are just babbling.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

So since you didn't refute Robert's point are we to assume indoctrination is fine as long as it lines up with yours?

there is a difference between indoctrination and education. Your religion does indoctrination. Teachers who teach fact are educators.

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine).[1] It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned

However, you have no evidence of what even goes on at dawkins camps, otherwise, you would have already presented it.

We KNOW that indoctrination happens at religious camps. Jesus camp proves that, since they dont ever teach them to question. Nope, at the jesus camps, the bible is true, god is real, and jesus loves you. Nevermind that we cant even demonstrate that any of that is even close to accurate. dont worry about that, though, because you have FAITH.

ANY institution that teaches faith over evidence is guilty of indoctrination.

Nice assumption, though. certainly didnt make an ass out of me

[grandpa]

there is a difference between indoctrination and education.
Your religion does indoctrination.

That is the theory of many thinkers, but there can be a very thin line between education and indoctrination. I would say indoctrination leads people to be dependent on some great leader, while true education encourages people to think more for themselves.

Grandpa h.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

That is the theory of many thinkers, but there can be a very thin line between education and indoctrination. I would say indoctrination leads people to be dependent on some great leader, while true education encourages people to think more for themselves.

Grandpa h.

its not my fault that his religion shies away from critical thought.

[iolo]

I dont know, and neither do you.

besides, the originals were still AT LEAST 40 years after the supposed events, if not longer. I dont know about you, but I have memories that I KNOW to be inaccurate, due to the inconsistencies shown by later seeing video of the same event. This same thing happens to everyone, whether or not they know it. And the inconsistencies that occur even within the bounds of what we refer to as eye-witness testimony can be suprisingly large.

You are starting with a fuzzy copy to begin with, and only have a 300-years-after-the-first-manuscript version of THAT. So, even if the copies of the copies of the translations of the copies of the fuzzy copy are even accurate to that fuzzy copy, that still says nothing about the accuracy of the actual accounts.

True. A great deal of our literature here, on the other hand, was not written down until hundreds of years after the events it describes, but those who transmitted it seem to have had a reverence for the originals which kept 'em remarkably accurate - to, for instance, the grammar of the time. The factual accounts will inevitable be distorted: the interesting question is what forces are likely to have distorted them in which directions. It's not going to give us any kind of certain text, but I think the enquiry is probably worth the effort.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

True. A great deal of our literature here, on the other hand, was not written down until hundreds of years after the events it describes, but those who transmitted it seem to have had a reverence for the originals which kept 'em remarkably accurate - to, for instance, the grammar of the time. The factual accounts will inevitable be distorted: the interesting question is what forces are likely to have distorted them in which directions. It's not going to give us any kind of certain text, but I think the enquiry is probably worth the effort.

name one source that was written hundreds of years after its events that is considered 'remarkably accurate'.

Also, it doesnt matter if the texts ARE remarkably accurate. No textual account will ever be enough evidence on its own to prove supernatural claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[iolo]

name one source that was written hundreds of years after its events that is considered 'remarkably accurate'.

Also, it doesnt matter if the texts ARE remarkably accurate. No textual account will ever be enough evidence on its own to prove supernatural claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Accurate how? Y Gododdin, a poem about a sixth century battle not written down until somewhere round 1200 seems not to contradict anything we know of the time or the language. We don't know much, but it seems surprisingly un-mucked-about.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

Accurate how? Y Gododdin, a poem about a sixth century battle not written down until somewhere round 1200 seems not to contradict anything we know of the time or the language. We don't know much, but it seems surprisingly un-mucked-about.

Why are you asking me "accurate how?"? You made the claim that these things are remarkably accurate.

And your example doesnt exactly help your case. A poem that describes something that we know little about seems to be accurate? Sorry, but that just doesnt do it for me.

And there are arguments that say that the poem was actually written down as early as 638CE. So, even if it is accurate, it might be a case of the author actually having first or secondhand accounts to work with. But this is all speculation. There simply isnt enough known about its origins.

[iolo]

Why are you asking me "accurate how?"? You made the claim that these things are remarkably accurate.

And your example doesnt exactly help your case. A poem that describes something that we know little about seems to be accurate? Sorry, but that just doesnt do it for me.

And there are arguments that say that the poem was actually written down as early as 638CE. So, even if it is accurate, it might be a case of the author actually having first or secondhand accounts to work with. But this is all speculation. There simply isnt enough known about its origins.

I think you are supposing we are in an argument where we don't in fact disagree much. Americans (are you?) incline to huge conspiracy theories, which inhibit discussion because so very unlikely. What I'm saying is that people tend to have a great reverence for certain 'texts' (they may, like Homer, not be written down for vast lengths of time) and preserve them. I think the notion of the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth - a concept that answered certain problems faced by Paul and other orthodox Jews - probably distorted the early recorded memories to a degree, but given the nature of a non-literate majority, not as much as we might suppose. I find that the books of the New Testament - apart from the 'prophetic' coded fantasies of 'John' on Patmos - hang together at least as well as Plato's record of Socrates, if in a rather different way, and under different critical limitations.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

I think you are supposing we are in an argument where we don't in fact disagree much. Americans (are you?) incline to huge conspiracy theories, which inhibit discussion because so very unlikely. What I'm saying is that people tend to have a great reverence for certain 'texts' (they may, like Homer, not be written down for vast lengths of time) and preserve them. I think the notion of the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth - a concept that answered certain problems faced by Paul and other orthodox Jews - probably distorted the early recorded memories to a degree, but given the nature of a non-literate majority, not as much as we might suppose. I find that the books of the New Testament - apart from the 'prophetic' coded fantasies of 'John' on Patmos - hang together at least as well as Plato's record of Socrates, if in a rather different way, and under different critical limitations.

You and I disagree on the notion of what "to a degree" means, i think. As much as the human memory is able to be corrupted in a relatively short time shows me that even 40 years is a LONG time for the memories of these supposed events to be radically changed from what they were. Not only that, but its also a 40 year long game of telephone. And THAT gets changed within the span of 30 people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers

They may have had reverence for these stories, but they were still human. Its completely ridiculous to think that "somehow" they kept the stories of the bible straight simply because they revered them, especially in a time where ignorance was rampant simply because of the nature of society.

[iolo]

You and I disagree on the notion of what "to a degree" means, i think. As much as the human memory is able to be corrupted in a relatively short time shows me that even 40 years is a LONG time for the memories of these supposed events to be radically changed from what they were. Not only that, but its also a 40 year long game of telephone. And THAT gets changed within the span of 30 people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers

They may have had reverence for these stories, but they were still human. Its completely ridiculous to think that "somehow" they kept the stories of the bible straight simply because they revered them, especially in a time where ignorance was rampant simply because of the nature of society.

Modern memories are not too hot. The evidence is that they were better when they didn't have writing to lean on.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

Modern memories are not too hot. The evidence is that they were better when they didn't have writing to lean on.

That might be correct, but at least when something is written down, it doesnt change. especially over decades.

Also, better doesnt mean perfect, or even near impeccable. its still fallable human memory. and we are talking about relying on it for decades, with people forgetting parts or misremembering something else. I mean, lying for god WAS OK'd by people like Eusebius early in christian history. How can we know that those lies were not incorporated into the stories?